Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What would you do with SSD Hard disks ?

Last response: in Storage
Share
August 25, 2008 1:15:50 PM

SSD drives may be not easy to get, their prices are starting to be more and more affordable. First for laptops, but also for powerful servers (many constructors added 2,5" hot-swapable HDD chassis to their product list).

SDD drives get very short access time, very high write performance, can be used in any RAID (0, 1, 5, 10 ...), but have a limited capacity.
What would you do with all these possibilities?

More about : ssd hard disks

August 25, 2008 1:33:39 PM

Hmmm... one for system bootup drive, and one for temporary files and maybe for windows swap...
But it depends an what do you want and how much you have money...

The fastest thing most propable is 5 ssd drives in raid 5 as an system and game drive, 64-bit system and 32 GB of fast memory. Then put 16 GB of that memory as an RAM drive for all temporary files and swap. It should be guite fast and expensive alternative...
August 25, 2008 1:41:16 PM

Everything I do with current hard drives?
Related resources
August 25, 2008 1:46:31 PM

Heyyou27 said:
Everything I do with current hard drives?


Only faster :p 

I would definitely use one(or two or three in a raid config) for my C: drive to install my OS on. Having a separate drive for my game installs would be nice as well. Obviously for storage I would still be using a conventional HDD.


Come on price drops!
August 25, 2008 1:50:30 PM

But there is no need for SSD in that case, SCSI could work very well too. What I'm trying to find out is how to get the best of SSD (and not in gaming, where graphic card is more important that HD).
I'm more thinking about 2 RAID 10 arrays (2 * 4 disks) in order to really increase disk bandwidth (RAID 5 is safe, but slow) on a 4 * quadcore CPU, with 8 to 16GB ram. On Linux.
You know, like .... servers?

What could really benefit from SSD? I/O applications, I guess. Could be database but as SSD disks are too expensive for high capacities, this is quite limited. Mail server? Ultra-loaded web server?
What really use I/O?
August 25, 2008 3:45:06 PM

I boot from 15k SAS, have a Windows swap file on 2 drive SSD RAID 0 and store my DATA on 3 drive SATA RAID 5.
August 25, 2008 4:29:59 PM

I have two SSDs. One is in my Sony VGN-SZ650n and the other is my main drive in my desktop. I have had RAIDed WD raptors and they are nothing compare to SSDs, for either read or write. The drives I purchased were Samsung from Newegg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The biggest difference is all about which storage technology the SSD employs. If it is MLC based, expect a performace to that of a conventional 7200 RPM drive. Any SSD that uses SLC technology, this is where the performance will blow away any conventional 10K or 15K drive out there.

I use both of mine for the speed and reliable factor. Even though the drives are expensive, they are a must for any user aiming to have top notch performance without a need for capacity.
August 25, 2008 8:19:39 PM

prefetch and photoshop swap drive
August 25, 2008 10:09:50 PM

Is RAID 10 or RAID 5 necessary when working with SSDs? Aren't they supposed to be more reliable than HDDs? I know they wear out too... I just thought they were "smart" enough to tell you when they needed replacing. Backup. Replace. Restore. Done.

That said, anywhere you have high-rate IO and small data would be good for these. I can think of several uses:
Message queues (e.g. MQ Server)
Database sort space (possibly - if it'll fit)
Video processing
Web servers - especially when temp file generation is involved
Transaction processing
ETL
Video stream server
Military aircraft and spacecraft data storage (not susceptible to vibrations and G-forces)

That's just a few that come to mind.
August 25, 2008 10:39:03 PM

You lucky SOB's..

I myself,would probably RAID them,virtualize,and play a game on the dedicated server I am running :) 

"OMG guys I'm getting 4 ping to the servers :D " <- you playing on your own dedicated virtual server

Hmm.So I wonder if I could run virtual memory and 8 of the fastest SSD's and still beat regular DDR2? Probably.
August 25, 2008 10:58:22 PM

pbrigido said:
I have two SSDs. One is in my Sony VGN-SZ650n and the other is my main drive in my desktop. I have had RAIDed WD raptors and they are nothing compare to SSDs, for either read or write. The drives I purchased were Samsung from Newegg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The biggest difference is all about which storage technology the SSD employs. If it is MLC based, expect a performace to that of a conventional 7200 RPM drive. Any SSD that uses SLC technology, this is where the performance will blow away any conventional 10K or 15K drive out there.

I use both of mine for the speed and reliable factor. Even though the drives are expensive, they are a must for any user aiming to have top notch performance without a need for capacity.


pbrigido you really need to update your profile! I could swear it reads Gateway...Lol this must be the system you had back in 1997? which makes it pretty decent :) 

Gateway 2000
Windows 95
P100 MHZ
1GB Harddrive
16MB RAM
15in CRT
14.4 Kbps Modem

a b G Storage
August 26, 2008 2:52:20 AM

I would have one for a swap file/page file/scratch drive/download drive.
August 26, 2008 3:10:46 AM

Leave them on the shelf, too much money for negligable performance. (1-8 seconds "faster" than my raptor) Also questionable quality.
August 26, 2008 9:50:02 AM

TeraMedia> Quite specific applications, but thanks for the answer.
About RAID, 5 is not necessary as it will decrease speed, but RAID10 could x2 read/write speed (like, 124.59 MB/sec on my last hdparm with 3ware SATA RAID card)
a b G Storage
August 26, 2008 10:30:33 AM

I dunno.
About 95% of the feedback I see from people who have bought them has been all negative.......like they read or write very fast, but when they have to do both at the same time, there is an issue which causes long lags and pauses. The makers are quick to respond to all the negative remarks with "call us and we'll help you resolve this issue." That is all well and good, but too many negative response's and so few positive response's indicate to me that something is not completely right yet.

I think they have a long ways to go before I get very exited about them.
August 26, 2008 10:32:48 AM

grieve said:
pbrigido you really need to update your profile! I could swear it reads Gateway...Lol this must be the system you had back in 1997? which makes it pretty decent :) 

Gateway 2000
Windows 95
P100 MHZ
1GB Harddrive
16MB RAM
15in CRT
14.4 Kbps Modem



What? Are you kidding! That system could dust any Core2 system on the market! :) 
August 26, 2008 10:34:39 AM

jitpublisher said:
I dunno.
About 95% of the feedback I see from people who have bought them has been all negative.......like they read or write very fast, but when they have to do both at the same time, there is an issue which causes long lags and pauses. The makers are quick to respond to all the negative remarks with "call us and we'll help you resolve this issue." That is all well and good, but too many negative response's and so few positive response's indicate to me that something is not completely right yet.

I think they have a long ways to go before I get very exited about them.



That is actually due to the drive itself being a MLC based technology, not SLC. Anyone who has a SLC based SSD drive will not even come close to having a problem like that.
August 26, 2008 11:30:04 AM

I will tell you what I would do with an SSD drive. It doesnt matter how big it is or how fast. It would be used to prop up my monitor as my stand is broken.

The industry is great at increasing performance and offering us better prices on storage. They are not however doing a good job at reliability. All SSD drives are very prone to data loss. On a machine that is used every day you are lucky to get a year out of a drive. These drives are still worse for data loss then an old raid-0 setup on the older crappy controllers. If you notices Intel would not touch that topic in the confrence. There is a reason.

As for the laptop market SSD drives are still battery killers. It doesnt matter what specs they produce it doesnt change the fact that any SSD drive on the shelf will cut your battery time by a nice chunk when tested on any system.

Aside from some amazing new breakthrough I dont see SSD drives as a viable solution for every day users for a few years still. IMO because of the faulty tech they use to start with it should be abandoned for something that does not degrade faster then just about any mechanical drive available.
August 26, 2008 11:59:29 AM

In tests, the SSDs (especially SLC ones), are proven to be much more reliable than any magnetic based storage solution.

Also, in my laptop, I gained an additional 15%-20% extra battery life by swtiching to the SSD. My whole experience with SSDs has been nothing less that pure astonishment, both in speed and reliability.
a b G Storage
August 26, 2008 12:08:42 PM

pbrigido said:
That is actually due to the drive itself being a MLC based technology, not SLC. Anyone who has a SLC based SSD drive will not even come close to having a problem like that.



Does not change the fact that there are still 10 negative comments for every positive one from the people I see buying them, whatever the type.

I am sure there are folks, like you, who believe you just must have these things.
You just keep on forking out the cash for them right now, I''l wait until they are bigger, reliable, and a heck of a lot less expensive.

I know the day will come when the old mechanical HDD is a thing of the past, man believe me I think it is way overdue already. But right now, the technology of SSD drive is just not ready for mainstream use quite yet.
August 26, 2008 12:28:36 PM

The facts speak for themself. MLC SSDs = bad (which isn't even too bad considering). SLC SSDs = good. The comments you read were posted by consumers that chose to go the cheap route and purchase a MLC SSD. I can't blame them for not being satisfied. Any user who owns a SLC drive, like myself, cannot and will not be able to find something bad to say about them.

The only reason that they are not mainsteam yet is because of the price and capacity, nothing more.
August 26, 2008 2:51:56 PM

I agree, the only reason not to have a SSD today is price. As soon as the price for high quality, 64-80GB (enough for OS, Apps and basic storage) SSDs are below what a 300GB Raptor costs you will see a trend where people will be buying them in place of said Raptor.

The thing to remember with SSD is that there are lower quality ones out there that are slower. There are also some drives around the corner that will be awesome by today’s standards. Just make sure that we do not generalize all SSDs when saying that they have this problem or that problem.

I think that before the end of the year I will be replacing my 300GB 15k SAS drive with SSD.


August 26, 2008 3:52:59 PM

Although this might sound lame (I have an old 10k 74GB raptor) quietness would be nice for a change. Even the best HDD can't beat the silence of a SDD. Also lets not forgot the good ol speed factor. Naturally it won't make your FPS jump but games packed with loading screens would benefit.
!